IE 7 is XP only.

[Ranger56]

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/23/0244218

[Kurashu]

Microsoft might have made a good move here or just pwned itself. I can understand why it would be XP only though.

[Ranger56]

Me neither, and it's a terrible idea, becuase if it has proper png support and whatnot, you wtill wont be able to do that because most people will be unsing IE6, they screwed themselves.

[JamieR]

Yeah I imagined It'd be XP only...found out about a fortnight ago, lol. I'm using Windows 2000 Server and XP Pro SP2 here..what do I do about my 2k box?

well I'll wait until I get a new motherboard for it...as I rebooted it yesterday and now it's effin dead :mad:

[Crake]

xp only?

obviously trying to get people to use xp not apple....

although i never have seen apple not letting xp use programs itunes etc

[JamieR]

One of the reasons that Apple released iTunes for Windows was that they wanted cross platform compatibility with the iPod. In terms of IE7, yes, it's a MS product so of course will only be, at first, windows based. I don't think there willl be another IE for Mac - Safari is supposed to be used on Mac ;)

[kuhlhost]

It is also fantastic news for Apple and mainstream linux distros.

It might also give webdevelopers more reason to forget about making sites that are compatible with older MS (eg ie5) browsers, and concentrate on standards compliant code that works with the mozilla or konquerer/safari browsers.

[JamieR]

Yeah..they are becoming less and less used now anyway. IE 5 Mac is still a big problem for developers tho.

[kuhlhost]

When I check the logs for my websites almost all my mac visitors are using safari. I very rarely see IE5 coming up. I think mac users generelly seem to be be more aware of technology, whereas when I check the logs for windows users I still find a lot of IE5.5 users out there, but only a very small percentage seem to be using IE5. IE6 probably accounts for about 75% of my Windows users these days, I guess because XP has been out for 4 or 5 years now.

[JamieR]

I find people who use macs are more interested in technology and know more about what goes on because they know the real difference between a mac and a pc - 90 or so % of work computers run MS Windows, so a lot of people will use what they have been using for a long-ish time. Mac people might have been introduced to Mac computers by someone else, or from sheer curiousity. Safari comes nativly with OS X I believe.

[e-Raser]

Tabbed browsing is the only thing that makes IE7 sound better to me. Not that'll I'll be using IE much anymore, Firefox has brainwashed me.

Internet Explorer is a Microsoft product so they have the right to make it Windows only. But why only XP? The majority of public schools here still use 98, though I doubt they'd update anything anyway. What about all those people with other Windows versions? Some of them might need to update their programs.

[JamieR]

I was hoping that IE7 would have excellent support for the CSS2 standard. However from what I have heard, it will only have partial support for CSS 2. In terms of RSS and things, I'm sure that IE7 will support RSS as well as XHTML and XML in a way which is far superior to what the likes of IE 6 and below do.

[Ranger56]

Tabbed browsing is the only thing that makes IE7 sound better to me. Not that'll I'll be using IE much anymore, Firefox has brainwashed me.

Internet Explorer is a Microsoft product so they have the right to make it Windows only. But why only XP? The majority of public schools here still use 98, though I doubt they'd update anything anyway. What about all those people with other Windows versions? Some of them might need to update their programs.


AlltheschoolsaroundhereuseXPpro.

[JamieR]

Yeah same....well our school uses XP Pro and Win 2k mainly. Our servers use Windows Server 2003 Enterprise and 2000 server. Our firewall servers are linux :D
I can only think of two schools that I know of that still use 98....

[mindlessLemming]

IE7 is XP sp2 only due to the security features (actually, it's the lack of insecurity features) of the latest version.
Considering support for Win2k ends VERY soon (get your linux distros ready boys), I am not surprised in the least that they have chosen not to write what would be a MASSIVE patch for Win2k solely for the purpose of allowing win2k to use a newer browser.
In fact, win2k's continuing compatibility with current apps is actually a Bad Thing for MS. For example, I'm currently typing this from work, where my OS is win2k. I can use every app I need to (including the latest versions in most cases) without having to consider upgrading. Also, I have no issues obtaining drivers for whatever piece of kit I request this week as win2k is:
a) mostly compatible with XP
b) still widely supported.

Now, how on earth do you expect MS to convince people to buy LongVision (longhorn/vista) when they never needed XP?
Exactly, you couldn't.

Having 3 full OS' out in the wild does not make life easier for MS. I'd do the same thing in their position.

That said, I am very relieved to see that IE7 beta2 will contain many of the CSS fixes IE so sorely needs.

Also, don't get wrapped up in what schools are using. MS doesn't care about your school (but they do care about the students, that's why they make XBox -- you're their future market and they want to sink their hooks in NOW!), nor do they care about you or me.

MS don't care about the 2 million customers who spend $300 each; they care about the 300 companies that spend $2 million each. They've always been screwed up that way :rolleyes:

[whackaxe]

gotta hand it to you mindlessLemming, that was a sweet post :)

I'm still sceptical about standards and CSS, I'll believe it when i see it. There might even be some new CSS bugs?

[JamieR]

In fact, win2k's continuing compatibility with current apps is actually a Bad Thing for MS. For example, I'm currently typing this from work, where my OS is win2k. I can use every app I need to (including the latest versions in most cases) without having to consider upgrading. Also, I have no issues obtaining drivers for whatever piece of kit I request this week as win2k is:
a) mostly compatible with XP
b) still widely supported.


I personally think that Windows 2000 is the best operating system Microsoft have EVER released. It's certainly just about the most stable IMHO and most problems are caused my device drivers rather than hardware/software incompatiabilities. I'm using XP and 2k Server here - I prefer 2k by a long shot because I find it faster and more responsive than XP. True, you can remove loads of stuff that XP has - like cd buring wizard etc from an xp installation, but 2k still does me well. I will be sad to see support end for it, and Andrew, I think it's true what you say about Microsoft not caring about their users, it's just the cash they want at the end of the day.

MS say that XP is the most secure OS they have ever released. True it probably is, but what about Windows Server 2003? That is pretty good and secure, although it has it's flaws as does almost every piece of software to a certain extent. You can make 2k dead secure providing you take the correct security steps. I know Microsoft want to move on and develop new stuff and rid themselves of supporting an operating system which is coming up for 6 years old, but afterall windows 2000 is still an extremley widely used OS. I don't really care about IE much on my computers - I don't use it, and when I do, it's only for testing stuff. It is still excellent news for developers, which has been mentioned in this thread before. Win2k doesn't have as many features as XP, nor does it have all the skinning capabilities, but afterall, every XP installation I use I skin so that it doesn't look like XP.

What about WIndows Server 03? With Microsoft being so security conscience now, I would have thought that IE7 would be supported on Win2k3 as well. However decent network administrators would have taken necessary precautions to tighten security on their servers, and browsing the net shoudn't even be done on a server.

[_Aerospace_Eng_]

My school actually was using W2K last year only because I guess it was easier to network them, but they are supposedly switching to XP this year.

[e-Raser]

Meh, all 98 here. As well as all the schools I've been to. maybe the newers ones would have XP.

[rmedek]

AlltheschoolsaroundhereuseXPpro.
All the schools around here use spaces.

:)

In an (almost) perfect world, IE 7 will accept the same hacks and workarounds as IE 6. That way I could hack for IE 6, ignore IE 7--knowing it will render the same--and wait for Longhorn and the hopefully much improved IE 8.

In a perfect world, everyone uses a standards-compliant browser they chose because they preferred its interface and feature set.

[kuhlhost]

Most corporates and the MS corporate sales team won't even register that the browser has changed, its just not important. As long as the corporate intranet still works most couldn't give a rats @ss about standards or compatibility.

Where MS will struggle is with the home computer user who can't afford to upgrade their computers to newer systems with XP pre-installed, but they probably rationalise that if you can't afford to upgrade your computer then they can't make money out of you anyway so why bother. This means that people on a budget will eventually start to use firefox because it can be installed on an older box.

Also, I reckon the average computer user with Win98 or WinME on their home computer probably doesn't even know theres a difference between ie5, ie6 and the new ie7. As long as they can still check their email and visit their favorite websites they won't notice anything wrong. When developers at major sites (pr1 and pr2) start making their sites standards compliant, then we might see the average user getting upset coz now their favorite sites will be broken on their computers.

[cf2sg]

xp only?
business tactic

[_Aerospace_Eng_]

Microsoft's new Internet Explorer 7 browser won't pass a stringent standards test that rivals have embraced.

In its browser blog, Microsoft acknowledged that IE 7 would not pass the Web Standards Project's Acid2 test, which examines a browser's support for W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) recommendations including CSS1 (Cascading Style Sheets), HTML4 and PNG (Portable Network Graphics).

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5813897.html?tag=nl.e589

Just when we thought CSS support was going to be better.

[rmedek]

Well, the list of bugs that ARE being fixed is quite reassuring:

* Peekaboo bug
* Guillotine bug
* Duplicate Character bug
* Border Chaos
* No Scroll bug
* 3 Pixel Text Jog
* Magic Creeping Text bug
* Bottom Margin bug on Hover
* Losing the ability to highlight text under the top border
* IE/Win Line-height bug
* Double Float Margin Bug
* Quirky Percentages in IE
* Duplicate indent
* Moving viewport scrollbar outside HTML borders
* 1 px border style
* Disappearing List-background
* Fix width:auto
* HTML 4.01 ABBR tag
* Improved (though not yet perfect) object fallback
* CSS 2.1 Selector support (child, adjacent, attribute, first-child etc.)
* CSS 2.1 Fixed positioning
* Alpha channel in PNG images
* Fix :hover on all elements
* Background-attachment: fixed on all elements not just body

(from molly.com)

[bradyj]

Yeah, but the fact that they're only fixing some of the bugs but not progressing pisses me off even more. Great, now it's fixed, now in two years we'll be back here complaining that IE is behind the game again.

Just switch to Apple guys, you get multiple background css in safari as they announced:) http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=15

[rmedek]

Just switch to Apple guys
Finally! Someone on this forum is making some sense! :D

[mindlessLemming]

Just switch to Apple guys

Sure, once they switch to decent CPU's :p :eek:
/me looks lovingly at the massive black and chrome intel tower by his side

[bradyj]

Sure, once they switch to decent CPU's :p :eek:
/me looks lovingly at the massive black and chrome intel tower by his side

Soon you will have your MacTel, soon...

[whackaxe]

Or failing that, switch to firefox. simple.

[Ranger56]

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/toolbox/oldmacs/macplus.gif


Ew...my old school used to have those..eww...

[JamieR]

That machine was still successful...and you are hotlinking that image ;)

[Ranger56]

That machine was still successful...and you are hotlinking that image ;)
But...Oregon trail...

And i know. I'm dangerous like that. :cool:

[CrzySdrs]

Microsoft's new Internet Explorer 7 browser won't pass a stringent standards test that rivals have embraced.

In its browser blog, Microsoft acknowledged that IE 7 would not pass the Web Standards Project's Acid2 test, which examines a browser's support for W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) recommendations including CSS1 (Cascading Style Sheets), HTML4 and PNG (Portable Network Graphics).
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5813897.html?tag=nl.e589

Just when we thought CSS support was going to be better.

Even Firefox doesn't pass the AcidTest. http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html
And the acid test is only a recommendation, not a standard.

[_Aerospace_Eng_]

The point I was trying to make is that other non-IE browsers are making the attempt to pass the test. Microsoft has no intentions of trying to pass it.

[Ranger56]

The point I was trying to make is that other non-IE browsers are making the attempt to pass the test. Microsoft has no intentions of trying to pass it.


I've never seen a broser pass that test...

[bradyj]

I've never seen a broser pass that test...

Safari passed the test in the first week of adjustments: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005_04.html

"And the acid test is only a recommendation, not a standard." That sounds like you're reading the IE blog, almost verbatim. While this is true, CSS is a standard, and the acid test is the ACT of standards, so to speak. Might not need it to get by, but it'll make you look good.

[jkd]

Safari passed the test in the first week of adjustments: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005_04.html

"And the acid test is only a recommendation, not a standard." That sounds like you're reading the IE blog, almost verbatim. While this is true, CSS is a standard, and the acid test is the ACT of standards, so to speak. Might not need it to get by, but it'll make you look good.

Safari doesn't pass. WebCore builds that you download and compile yourself do. Ditto with Konqueror builds. I think iCab is the only "officially released" browser which actually passes.

[bradyj]

Safari doesn't pass. WebCore builds that you download and compile yourself do. Ditto with Konqueror builds. I think iCab is the only "officially released" browser which actually passes.

Wether the public has it yet or not doesn't defeat the fact that the Safari developers have worked at making it pass, and developers can download it if they choose. That's a far cry from IE's attempt. So, that statement is open to question -- the Safari developers have updated their browser to make it pass the Acid 2 test, but it has not been released native, though there's no reason why it won't in the near future. To me, that means Safari has passed, same for WASP:
http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_04.html

You can automatically update your safari by:
http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Internet-Utilities/NightShift.shtml